←back to thread

Eggs US – Price – Chart

(tradingeconomics.com)
643 points throwaway5752 | 4 comments | 05 Feb 25 16:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cortesoft ◴[05 Feb 25 16:36 UTC] No.42951014[source]▶
Yeah, bird flu is really bad.
replies(7): >>42951084 #>>42951089 #>>42951101 #>>42951106 #>>42951123 #>>42951207 #>>42951225 #
llamaimperative ◴[05 Feb 25 16:39 UTC] No.42951089[source]▶
This is why we must freeze USDA funding, halt all public health communications from our federal government, and urgently (TOP PRIORITY!!!) scrub all mentions of the word "women" from every public-facing piece of scientific content we can find.
replies(5): >>42951144 #>>42951148 #>>42951175 #>>42951214 #>>42951919 #
Spivak ◴[05 Feb 25 16:42 UTC] No.42951144[source]▶
I did think it was funny that they included 'women' and 'female' in that list. Medicine is gonna have a hard time with that one, "this drug has some adverse effects with uhh… ovulating persons?"
replies(5): >>42951156 #>>42951188 #>>42951302 #>>42951730 #>>42952945 #
jl6 ◴[05 Feb 25 17:12 UTC] No.42951730[source]▶
They didn’t include 'women' and 'female' in that list.
replies(1): >>42952104 #
1. llamaimperative ◴[05 Feb 25 17:34 UTC] No.42952104[source]▶
Consider for a moment: what if it did include those terms? What do you think it'd indicate if some hypothetical government decided to hunt down those words across the scientific literature and subject them to review? Would that indicate something meaningful to you?

Now keep that thought in mind... and now acknowledge that that hypothetical government is actually the current one.

Pay close attention to what your mind is doing and let us know if you notice any interesting contortions that somehow draw a line between the obviously fucking insane hypothetical government you were imagining a second ago and the current real one. Report back!

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/02/05/n...

replies(1): >>42953099 #
2. jl6 ◴[05 Feb 25 18:39 UTC] No.42953099[source]▶
There is no executive order banning use of the words women and female.
replies(1): >>42954608 #
3. llamaimperative ◴[05 Feb 25 20:25 UTC] No.42954608[source]▶
Thanks for sharing your contortions! Honestly impressed with your candor, I appreciate it.
replies(1): >>42955598 #
4. jl6 ◴[05 Feb 25 21:41 UTC] No.42955598{3}[source]▶
I replied to someone who thought the words had been banned and scientists would have to use phrases like “ovulating person”.

It seemed to be based on taking your post (“scrub all mentions of the word "women"”) at face value.

You understand now that that isn’t true? That the word “women” is not being scrubbed, and nobody has asked for it to be scrubbed?